concurring specially.
[¶ 44] I am not convinced that the 1997 amendment to section 65-05-08.1, N.D.C.C., was intended to delete any due-process rights the claimant might have. Although the language relating to the “summary of the evidence” was deleted in the 1997 amendment, the requirement that the notice “must include a statement of the reason for the action” was retained. The minutes of the hearings before the House and Senate Business, Industry and Labor Committee on HB 1264, which amended section 65-05-08.1, N.D.C.C., contain no reference of any intent to reduce the due-process rights of the claimant by the amendment and do not mention that particular amendment.
[¶ 45] In view of the lack of any legislative history indicating a specific intent to the contrary, and, in view of our obligation to strive to construe a statute in a constitutional light if possible, e.g., Rothe v. S-N-Go Stores, Inc., 308 N.W.2d 872 (N.D.1981), I would not imply there is a constitutional deficiency in the 1997 amendment to the statute. Rather, I would construe the statute even as amended as obligating compliance with constitutional due-process requirements.
[¶ 46] Nevertheless, I am not convinced that, as a matter of due process, the NOID must include a summary of the evidence the Bureau was relying upon to terminate benefits. I concurred specially in Beckler v. N.D. Workers Comp. Bureau, 418 N.W.2d 770, 775 (N.D.1988) observing that where “the Bureau was aware that [the claimant] was disputing his ability to return to work but it nevertheless terminated [the claimant’s] benefits retroactively” the procedure used denied the claimant due process. Id. at 776.
[¶ 47] I agree the claimant is entitled to knowledge of the basic evidence upon which the Bureau relies. Whether that knowledge is made available through the NOID or some other procedure designed to inform the claimant of that evidence is not, in my opinion, a matter of due process, if the information is provided in some form.
[¶ 48] Here, the record reveals Stewart cooperated with the Bureau in answering questions during interviews by the investigators and voluntarily supplied information. Although he should have known the Bureau was suspicious about his income, *293he was nevertheless entitled to know the evidence the Bureau relied on in issuing the NOID, if only to attempt to correct an arguably wrong impression the Bureau may have gleaned from the evidence. The record, however, does not reveal any attempt by the Bureau to make the evidence on which it relied in issuing the NOID available to Stewart. Insofar as the majority opinion concludes that in this case Stewart’s lack of knowledge of the evidence upon which the Bureau was relying for the NOID was a denial of due process, I concur in the result.
[¶ 49] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C. J.